The Seen and the Seers
or Knife and Fire
From Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key.
James Jordan observes that the tools required for Adam to produce bread and wine in the Land were “Knife and Fire.” In God’s kitchen, Knife is Division (guarding cherubim), and Fire is Testing (purifying seraphim). The ascension of the Head allows the holy fire to descend upon the nearbringing sacrifice and raise up a fragrant Body of smoke from the Altar.
Then we have Knife and Fire again at Conquest, or in the Covenant framework, applied Sanctions. Like the Tree of Wisdom, the kingdom wine is matured, alcoholic—“fully grown.” It is Knife-and-Fire-in-a-Cup, a two-edged sword that we swallow. The bittersweet wine cuts us to the heart, judging us from the inside out. Alcohol removes our inhibitions. It exposes the true “thoughts and intents” of our hearts (Hebrews 4:12). The sword of Solomon reveals the identity of the true mother.
Just as the sword-Word sanctified the Head, so now it sanctifies the Body. The Covenant oath which Adam swore to keep is being required of him by God. With his wife as one flesh, he is being forced to eat his words. Sanctions is the Spirit looking for internal Law. The outflow “from his belly” (Succession), whether blessing or curse, bondage or freedom, will transform the world.
For Covenant “infants,” those still under external Law, the cup brings death. On the Day of Coverings, their legal nakedness is dis-covered. They are seen. They and their heirs are cursed.
For Covenant elders, those who have obtained the knowledge of good and evil lawfully (by Grace), it brings joy and rest and continued life. They not only carry the Succession (Covenant success) into the future as an inheritance, their wisdom is a blessing to the nations. They are covered, robed with righteousness. They are wise judges: seers.
The Covenant Ethics are the tools of dominion. Adam was supposed to inherit these tools—Knife-and-Fire—freely from the hand of God. But instead of the Covenantal “there and back again” of the Trinity living in him by the Spirit for the Conquest of the Land, Knife-and-Fire was an external flaming sword flashing to-and-fro.
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:33 pm
If I need to council someone who is struggling with anger how does this help me help them with their anger?
March 2nd, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I’m not a pastor, but I am a dad. Firstly, it depends on why they are angry. Secondly, the matrix pattern has us loving our enemies, imaging Christ in order to bring them to repentance. We leave vengeance to God. But when God turns up for harvest, it’s time to pour on the coals from the Altar in holy war. Loving our enemies — making ourselves vulnerable — either converts them or gives them an opportunity to fill up their sins. Man’s anger doesn’t bring about God’s will, but God’s anger does. The best counsel to begin with would be to pour out the angry heart in prayer – like the Psalmists did. Works wonders for me.
March 3rd, 2012 at 5:47 am
Hey Mike!
I was just wondering how I could get a hold with someone from the Preterist Blog to answer my question. What verses refer to the second coming and which verses refer to the coming in judgment? I read parts of Chilton’s Day’s of vengeance and he says that the Book of revelation doesn’t talk about his Second coming at all. Hope you can help!
Thanks
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:56 pm
You can email Dee Dee Warren at: preteristsite@gmail.com
I have some posts on here that might help:
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/05/30/moses-vs-hyperpreterism/
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/11/07/here-comes-success/
Basically, Revelation does what all the previous prophets did — speak to the audience of their day, predicting an impending judgment with warnings to repent. The book is about the end of the Old Covenant, but with vengeance for all the crimes against the prophets since Abel. But it follows the standard Covenant structure, so the final section gives us a glimpse of the future, the “Succession” kept in store for those who obey the prophecy. In the case of Revelation, it is “the heavenly country” for the slain, and the end of persecution by Herod/Nero for the living. Chapter 20 covers this, and it is this chapter that pulls the rug out from under full preterism. They can’t handle it without doing all sorts of weird acrobatics to get around it. Unfortunately, they don’t see their interpretatinos as weird because they aren’t familiar with the structures contained in previous scriptures, which Revelation recapitulates.
March 5th, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Well, my problem with this is that nothing you wrote in the above post addresses anger directly and explicitly. The reason why Carson favors a direct hermeneutic is because it treats the text of Scripture at its face value rather than adding layers and layers of motifs and symbols and subjective structures over top the text.
Your structures and chaisms are very creative and indeed interesting, but they remove me a couple of steps or more from what the text itself is saying.
March 5th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Well, my post is about the Covenant significance of Communion. How does Communion help someone with their anger? If we take the time to understand God’s creative and interesting typology as it relates to Communion, it brings all of history to bear on the things we struggle with in every day life, including anger. That’s how the Bible, and the world, are built. In fact, limiting counseling to explicit verses on, for instance, anger, distorts the Bible into a how-to booklet, full of verses for the day, helpful but out of context. Instead, we should be giving people a deep understanding of the ways of God, and how they shed light on the messy areas of life. David Deutsch, who obviously has a very soft heart, made this observation in his review of The Covenant Key:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RU0ISWZIDE69/
I hope that helps. Discovering we are part of a bigger picture of Conquest-by-Covenant, not just sitting tight till Jesus rescues us, is a big part of holiness and perseverance. it shows that our daily lives are organically connected to God’s work in history. We ourselves are types, images.
I guess what I’m saying is that a direct/non-direct debate is a false dichotomy. I’m saying that attempting to interpret many passages without taking typology into account will give you the WRONG interpretation, which is why I disagree with Carson and others on their eschatology. Their failure to understand AD70 as Christ’s imminent return for His firstfruits means they actually rip the New Testament out of context and make it fluffy in application for modern Christians. It’s actually Carson’s approach that distances us from the text by getting the interpretation wrong.
March 6th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Actually it is Carson who has rightly identified at least 50 inter-canonical themes that intersect the texts we need to interpret at face value. I take his advice as a reminder to see these theme without habitually layering subjective elements over the text (such as chiasms that must be seen in every text). I do not see his advice as creating a false dichotomy in which we must completely avoid types or themes or motifs.
We can indeed respect the presence of types and motifs in Scripture without making them the primary window through which we must see every single portion of Scripture.
A simple point that I think Doug Wilson was making in his post today ‘Drive a Textual Nail.’ Some times there is an indescribable beauty in seeing a singular connection between one text in Scripture and another – the beauty of one line from one significant point in the OT to a later one in the NT. In such cases the beauty is evident not only in its unadorned bond, but also in the pure simplicity.
March 6th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Mark, I’m not arguing either/or. I’m arguing for “Carson and…”
I actually left a comment on Doug’s post. Will repost here.
Thanks for your objections! Great to have some interaction.
March 7th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Mike,
Doug W further validates my point that the simplest connection is foundational to anything else the may (or may not) result from our work of interpretation.
see
http://www.dougwils.com/Chrestomathy/and-so-it-was-that-all-my-woes-began.html#JOSC_TOP
btw – I object not because I totally disagree with your approach. My objections are an effort to seek some balance. Thanks for you enthusiasm for God’s Covenant Book to man.
March 7th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Mark – sure, we start with the simple connections. But evangelicals don’t get past the simple connections, which is why their eschatology is up a gum tree without a paddle.
Doug’s recent post also illustrates my point. He says that the apostolic interpretation of OT texts is different to his own “face value” interpretation. Well, in most cases they are both right. What the apostles get is the typological connection between the two texts, because each is part of a similar covenant process. It’s not one or the other. Yes, the NT sheds light on the OT, but not in the way Wilson seems to be indicating.